- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:18:22 -0400
- To: derhoermi@gmx.net (Bjoern Hoehrmann), Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@appcomp.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 03:47 AM 4/18/01 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > >XSLT and XSL would be xml/xsl, svg could be xml/svg. (Although image/svg > >works) XHTML could be xml/xhtml. I think this is a good idea because > >compressing all the possible XML formats into "text/xml" and > >"application/xml" seems squished. And xml is really not just text. > >Take a look at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt and the discussion >around it. Yep. It lets you do things like image/svg+xml. I pushed hard for a root-level MIME type, or for more than two layers of type (xml/image/svg), but the suffix was the best we could get. In the end, I was pretty happy with it. The discussion is at: http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/ Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 09:18:40 UTC